Tuesday, September 16, 2008

On library censorship

Evidently, the GOP vice presidential nominee is in some trouble because she evidently was involved in library censorship. Except for the little fact, of course, that she didn't do anything of the sort.

But let's imagine that there was indeed something in the Wasilla Public Libraries that was, at least in the mind of Wasilla residents, objectionable. Do sensible people truly believe that these taxpayers ought to be on the hook for putting filth into their own communities? Do we really believe that the mayor and the city council--or the taxpayers--have no right to critique what kind of literature is to be found in their local libraries?

It is as if librarians and the ACLU truly believe that the 1st Amendment somehow protects not only the freedom of the press, but also requires towns and cities to pay taxes to put anything and everything into their library if the librarian says so. Judith Reisman puts it well; this dustup is not about liberty or democracy, but rather about the desire of unaccountable elites to control the flow of information.

2 comments:

pentamom
said...

Very good point. Everyone (almost) agrees that p&rn shouldn't be in a public library because it is obviously destructive and undesirable as something the community should be sponsoring, but everyone (almost) also acts like there's some kind of obvious, self-evident divine revelation from on high that tells us exactly where the line should be drawn as to what is desirable and inappropriate for public support, and it's OBVIOUSLY far to the north of anything social or religious conservatives would be concerned about (except for the aforementioned smut.) In reality, the line is probably pretty much where you locate it -- what the credentialed elites think is right to require of and impose upon the rest of us.